Not allowed to paint house?

marathonic

The development my father lives in has a management company that was set up AFTER the development was built and was entirely voluntary. It wasn't written into the contracts but everyone contributed a small amount per year which went into a sinking fund.

With this money, the development had things like salt bins placed up the steep lane going through the development during the icey weather and the repair of the water pump that serviced the development before the council took it over (this was needed due to poor water pressure).

As it wasn't a legal requirement for people to join and the development was built in the early 2000's, two people stopped paying when the recession hit and they saw their property value plummet below purchase price.

The development uses a standard colour scheme for the houses and only the door of each differs. The management company funds were recently used to repaint the entire development (obviously, homeowners painting the same colour at different intervals would result in different shades throughout the development and the overall cost would be higher than it was when using a single painting contractor).

They faced a conundrum - do we offer to paint the two houses that aren't paying. They decided not to and I must say, it really does take away from the whole look of the development and has the potential to turn off prospective purchasers.

With this in mind, the existence of a management company wouldn't turn me off a house purchase, in particular if it was well run.

I believe that 'official' management companies must maintain minutes of their annual AGM's and you can review them prior to a house purchase. These should give a good indication of how well run the management company is.

Mrs OBumble

GarIT wrote: »

So if I have a management company, my personal gardens and rubbish is collected for free? I've never heard of that before. Management companies certainly don't get value for money as far as I can see. Maybe they are no for profit, but they do piss money away on things some residents cant afford.
Even at 1k per year for bins and grass it is insane, any why would somebody pay for these twice? We already pay the council to maintain the local area, so why do we pay a management company to do the councils jobs, any residents association or anything like that is only ever the super stuck up people anyway, that have no idea of how financially stuck some people are.

The council only maintain areas that they have taken in charge.

If an estate has not been taken in charge, then the owners collectively are responsible for maintenance of the common areas. And they are liable if anyone has an accident on the common areas too - smart ones have public liability insurance in place to cover this.

IMHO management companies should be working to put themselves out of being needed and get their estates taken in charge. But some residents want their area maintained to a higher standard than the council's usual one, or want to impose more rules on the development. This is the price of buying in an development with a management company. If you don't like that, then don't buy in such a development.

athtrasna

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The council only maintain areas that they have taken in charge.

If an estate has not been taken in charge, then the owners collectively are responsible for maintenance of the common areas. And they are liable if anyone has an accident on the common areas too - smart ones have public liability insurance in place to cover this.

IMHO management companies should be working to put themselves out of being needed and get their estates taken in charge. But some residents want their area maintained to a higher standard than the council's usual one, or want to impose more rules on the development. This is the price of buying in an development with a management company. If you don't like that, then don't buy in such a development.

Councils won't take on landscaping any more and would never insure buildings or pay refuse so I can't see how a development could function without them, unless a development of houses only.

Santa Cruz

GarIT wrote: »

Does the condition matter if you are charging people a fee to live in their own home. Paying tax to the government is one thing but a management company is just insane.

You haven't grasped the concept of management companies. Each management company is made up up the owners of the properties. It is a limited company and each owner has one share. Directors are elected
to run the management of the estate/apartment complex. This is either done by themselves or by employing a management agent to organise cleaning, maintenance etc.
Like everything else in this country there are good management companies and bad management companies. The bad ones are usually the ones where the owners/shareholders don't take any interest in the management of the estate and are generally ignorant of the legal position which they signed into

Santa Cruz

GarIT wrote: »

I'm not bothered getting involved, I just don't want other home owners dictate what I can do to my house.

Currently we pay €50 per year to have some grass cut 4 times per year that any of the local teenagers would be happy to do for €5. We have 42 houses paying €50 per year and get 0 back from it.

You don't have a management company. You have a residents association. No legal basis whatsoever.
If you don't like them there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own one.

random10

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You don't have a management company. You have a residents association. No legal basis whatsoever.
If you don't like them there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own one.

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

Paulw

random10 wrote: »

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

It may not be a planning stipulation, but it is still a legally binding clause in your contract with the management company, which you signed up to upon purchase of the property.

Mrs OBumble

random10 wrote: »

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

Yes. More along the lines of "everything must be painted the same colour" though, not "nothing can be painted at all".

L1011

random10 wrote: »

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

Yes, usually in conservation areas though.

conorhal

bumper234 wrote: »

So if op decides to paint house what could/would happen?

Am sure most are well run but what happens if you get someone with a grudge against you on the committee or some busybody who wants to stir it?

Thank god for (effective) management companies. They save us all from the 'it's moy roite to do what I loike, loike' crowd, who's rather dubious interpretation of what they consider their 'rights' are generally the bane of everybody else on a street.
The OP 'thinks the house would look nicer' if it was painted, I might think mine looked nicer with 6 life-size day-glo plastic unicorns on the roof.
If a street has been built to a certain aesthetic than that should be maintained. After all, is there anything uglier than a nice red brick terrace that one person in the middle of which has decided 'looks nicer' with some 70's stone-clad all over the front of their house?

Satriale

There is a lot worrying anyone, who is bothered by the colour or texture of their neighbours house. My neighbour has half a wall of the aforementioned stone cladding and the rest painted a tinge of mustard.
Not to my taste, but they are very good neighbours.

athtrasna

Satriale wrote: »

There is a lot worrying anyone, who is bothered by the colour or texture of their neighbours house. My neighbour has half a wall of the aforementioned stone cladding and the rest painted a tinge of mustard.
Not to my taste, but they are very good neighbours.

The difference being (probably) that you bought in a traditional development that doesn't have a management company. Problems arise where people buy in a managed development and agree to lease conditions and then a neighbour breaks them, or they do. It can be a source of stress and expense for the management company to enforce these conditions.

Satriale

athtrasna wrote: »

The difference being (probably) that you bought in a traditional development that doesn't have a management company. Problems arise where people buy in a managed development and agree to lease conditions and then a neighbour breaks them, or they do. It can be a source of stress and expense for the management company to enforce these conditions.

Fair enough. But these things are only a problem if you allow yourself to be worried about somebody elses taste.
Me, I'd prefer a good neighbour with bad taste, than a bad neighbour with good taste.

athtrasna

Satriale wrote: »

Fair enough. But these things are only a problem if you allow yourself to be worried about somebody elses taste.
Me, I'd prefer a good neighbour with bad taste, than a bad neighbour with good taste.

No, these are a legal problem and something that will affect every other owner one way or the other. You can't wilfully break lease conditions and not expect repercussions. Enforcement will happen, you will pay the cost as will every other owner if legal fees are involved. This is the reality of living in a managed development.

I'd prefer a good neighbour too, but in a managed development, a good compliant neighbour. If someone breaks the rules on an issue of taste then no matter how good they are to me, they will ultimately cost me money so that cancels out personal experience.

Satriale

athtrasna wrote: »

No, these are a legal problem and something that will affect every other owner one way or the other. You can't wilfully break lease conditions and not expect repercussions. Enforcement will happen, you will pay the cost as will every other owner if legal fees are involved. This is the reality of living in a managed development.

I'd prefer a good neighbour too, but in a managed development, a good compliant neighbour. If someone breaks the rules on an issue of taste then no matter how good they are to me, they will ultimately cost me money so that cancels out personal experience.

Hmmm, I prefer to get along with my neighbours. Shake the rule book long enough and they may all get together to vote in a management that likes that much maligned stone cladding. Then there may only be one house with red brick, along with a summons ordering its change...

athtrasna

Satriale wrote: »

Hmmm, I prefer to get along with my neighbours. Shake the rule book long enough and they may all get together to vote in a management that likes that much maligned stone cladding. Then there may only be one house with red brick, along with a summons ordering its change...

See earlier posts re planning permission

marienbad

athtrasna wrote: »

See earlier posts re planning permission

What do you do if a householder can no longer afford the management fees ?

athtrasna

marienbad wrote: »

What do you do if a householder can no longer afford the management fees ?

Take every step we can to get fees paid. Our management company goes legal after giving every opportunity to arrange a payment plan. That can go as far as obtaining a judgement mortgage against the property. In some developments services can be withdrawn e.g. parking, refuse etc.

Payment of fees is a legal obligation, other owners should not be expected to subsidise non paying units.

marienbad

athtrasna wrote: »

Take every step we can to get fees paid. Our management company goes legal after giving every opportunity to arrange a payment plan. That can go as far as obtaining a judgement mortgage against the property. In some developments services can be withdrawn e.g. parking, refuse etc.

Payment of fees is a legal obligation, other owners should not be expected to subsidise non paying units.

So one set of neighbours goes through other neighbours financial circumstances ?

athtrasna

marienbad wrote: »

So one set of neighbours goes through other neighbours financial circumstances ?

No, the company accounts are produced at the AGM, though directors would have access to that information during the year as part of their cash flow management.

marienbad

athtrasna wrote: »

No, the company accounts are produced at the AGM, though directors would have access to that information during the year as part of their cash flow management.

So as I said then one set of neighbours looking at others finances .

athtrasna

marienbad wrote: »

So as I said then one set of neighbours looking at others finances .

Members of the management company having access to management company accounts. The only income for management companies are fees so yes. In reality, only the directors are aware of the details of fee payments as we don't publish a list of debtors as part of the accounts and no other member has ever requested details.

I know of one development that publishes a list of thanks to those units paying fees so it's quite obvious who isn't.

marienbad

athtrasna wrote: »

Members of the management company having access to management company accounts. The only income for management companies are fees so yes. In reality, only the directors are aware of the details of fee payments as we don't publish a list of debtors as part of the accounts and no other member has ever requested details.

I know of one development that publishes a list of thanks to those units paying fees so it's quite obvious who isn't.

So how far will the management company go to enforce payment on a cash strapped householder ?

athtrasna

marienbad wrote: »

So how far will the management company go to enforce payment on a cash strapped householder ?

Depends on the company. Judgement mortgage or withdrawal of services are most likely. Management companies are not profit making and rely on fees to pay for services such as insurance, common area lighting, refuse etc. These cannot be provided if the funds aren't there. Owners have signed a legally enforceable agreement that they will pay fees, it's not other owners' fault if they hit hard times, why should they be expected to make up the shortfall.

Paulw

marienbad wrote: »

So how far will the management company go to enforce payment on a cash strapped householder ?

The short answer - all the way - court judgement, and even go to the sheriff for collection, if needed. Thankfully we have never needed the final step. Once it gets to court people tend to wise up and agree a payment plan.

There are always some genuine hardship cases, and we will work with those individuals to come to an arrangement. But, the debt will always remain and will always be due for payment. Then there are those who claim hardship but it is clear to see that they just don't want to pay, or they are a landlord and are trying to escape paying.

Anything more than 2 years of outstanding fees and we take the next steps. We have had judgements against people, we have had payment orders against people, and we will do everything within our power to ensure people pay their debt.

I have to pay my fees, so I don't see why someone else should not have to pay theirs in full too.

marienbad wrote: »

So as I said then one set of neighbours looking at others finances .

No, I don't see the finances of others, I see the finances of the company I am a director of. I know who has paid, who has a payment plan, and who hasn't paid.